Bitcoin Forum

So, a few weeks ago I attended two conferences on diversity. One was on ethnic and socio-cultural diversity, which I found interesting, and the other on sexual and affective diversity, which I found less interesting and in some cases, such as the one I am going to comment on, pure ideological garbage.

I had heard the term fluid gender before but didn't know exactly what it referred to, just as I don't know exactly what the supposed dozens of genres that exist, it seems as many as 68 or more, refer to:

68 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression (https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders)

So, according to the supposed man and the supposed woman who were giving the conference (I say supposed because I don't know how they would define themselves in terms of gender, I simply want to emphasize that one seemed to have mostly masculine physical characteristics and the other feminine), gender is not a defined and static thing, but it is fluid and one can feel man today and woman tomorrow. But what's more: one can feel like 80% man today and 30% man tomorrow.

Here we would have to include other genders and tastes in the equation, that is, I could feel 30% male today, 20% non-binary, 25% female and the other 25% who knows what gender, but I could also feel attracted only to men today. If tomorrow I were to feel 100% female and I liked only women, then tomorrow I would be, in addition to being gender fluid, a trans-gender lesbian woman.

I think there is no need to explain too much why this is garbage. To begin with, if we were to apply this to any other aspect of life we would think that the fluid person is sick in the head.

These theories come out in societies where people have a full belly and because they have a lot of time to think they come up with things like this, which are nonsense.

Another thing is that what is statistically irrelevant is being passed off as normal. People who are not clear about their supposed gender and change it as they please are, by mathematical approximation, 0% of society.

I don't know if this has become trendy now and cool but it doesn't stand up to serious rational analysis.

The one thing I don't understand about the mental illness of denying your gender, is why it is limited to gender.  If someone uses this same approach to their race, they are often vilified.  I'd love to hear someone explain to me how a man can identify as a woman and participate in female sports, but an Asian man can't identify as a black man to get more opportunities for college grants.  Why is society taking this stance that you can select your gender and everyone has to go along with it, but if you select your race then you are a racist?  It makes no sense to me.  Does this mean the mental illness of denying who you are will expand to race someday, or will we all eventually stop playing these games and identify people by their biological chromosomes?

I see no problem in people feeling whatever they decide and I think is pretty much their own thing. I think that, in the name of tolerance, there is too much public attention to gender and gender identities, but I guess the reason is that it has been something hidden and secret in most societies and still considered criminal behaviour in many places and something rejected by society in others.

I am all right with whoever speaking about it, I have enough critical thinking and experience of life to decide what I believe or not but, to start with, if we are not talking physical gender, then what is exactly "gender"? Is it, for example, violence exclusive of the "male" gender? Is it caring only for the female?

Now if we are we simply talking about sexual preferences, then I believe 68 falls short of reality and all that you have described as "ideology" does happen as the human sexual behaviour is nearly infinite. As said, it should be something natural to know and speak about it.

I personally have meet binaries, a girl that was trying to convince herself that was lesbian, a 100% lesbian from a fundamentalist catholic family, a lesbian that got married to a man to later divorce him, a girl that was with a girl for 10 years and then with a man, a 100% gay man that has never been with a girl and did not understand what was happening to him until his 30s, a gay man that has been with a few women until he assumed the "situation" a few lesbians that tried very hard to be "more lesbian than anyone" by being rude to men and looking like a truck drivers and, lastly, one of the most beautiful, fun and lovely ladies I have ever met... 100% born lesbian.

I am sure there is more out there and there is something positive in having them hear that they are not alone and there are other things than "male" and "female".

Really this gender fluid stuff is a result of the chemicals in the food and water which has crippled people in both appearance and mind. They want to cripple people so they will choose to hate themselves. To feel self-loathing so they will accept the next part of the elite's plan and that is transhumanism which can be humans merging with other species or similar mammals or more likely the concept of humans merging with machines so they can be "gods" that can live forever.

Yuval Noah Harari

http://www.jimstoneindia.com/pagesq22022/page1.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qOHwplbt7E

I can't understand such things, I think it has to do with the society we live in and the culture we imbibe since childhood, I've heard of such before that a man can be 80% male and 20% female or vice versa but I can't understand that because society The one I live in rejects these things and considers them nonsense. I think that depends primarily on the society and the extent to which people accept such things, but at the moment most societies reject such things and such people find it very difficult to be accepted by people in many of these societies.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

I think your percentage split example is relevant and might lead to a rational analysis, certainly in terms of sexual orientation which, for want of a better word, is more of a spectrum than a binary choice. Some people are attracted only to men, some only to women, some to both, some to neither, and even if someone is attracted only to women, they can be attracted to a certain type of woman, but not another type... and there are probably as many shades and nuances of sexual attraction as there are people in the world. But humans have a tendency (and often a need) to classify things. Not long ago, there was only one "legitimate" type of sexual attraction, which was heterosexuality... everything else was denied. Since then homosexuality has become more accepted, and bisexuality etc., but it is probably a mistake to try to define everything, there will always be new categories and nuances, it is enough, perhaps, to accept that they exist and are (for the most part) perfectly acceptable in society. Labels are necessary only insofar as there is discrimination against that specific subset.

If gender is an abstract feeling of who you are, distinct from the biological male/female split, then it's fine to describe your gender as whatever you see fit, but it is silly to expect everyone to learn every term in an ever-growing lexicon, it is enough to work towards ensuring that there is no discrimination, irrespective of personal label.

Well, that's one of my points, although I wouldn't call it denying your gender or mental illness, rather choosing your gender. In the vast majority of cases we can speak of someone as male or female based on biological characteristics but there are cases (statistically few) of hermaphroditism, which today are called intersexuality.

What I don't agree with is: here you have 86 types of gender, choose the one you like the most, and if you get tired tomorrow you can choose another one.

When I say that someone is a man or a woman, I am referring to objective biological characteristics, not to a feeling.

If we do not limit what I have put in bold to gender, we reach obvious absurdities as in the example of the diets below.


No, we are not talking about sexual preferences. Gender may or may not be linked to sexual preference. You can feel non-binary today and like women, tomorrow you can feel male and like men, and the day after you can feel female and only like male-female transsexuals. That's the theory, and I'm giving you simple examples, it can get much more complicated.

I think it's fine for you to have the sexual preferences you want as long as what you do is between consenting adults, but the issue of gender, especially in the case of fluid, is a mental masturbation .

If we were to apply it to other areas, we would think that the person is not right in the head. If I tell you that today I feel 70% vegan and 30% carnivore, it is normal that you would think that I am an idiot and if you see me the next day and I tell you I'm doing the keto diet, you see me again the day afer and I tell you I'm only eating fast food that day, etc. you'd think I was crazy.


I do not agree with this. When I say that someone is a man or a woman, I am referring to objective parameters. Maybe you were biologically born a man and you feel like a woman. I can understand that. You may be born a man and like men. It is normal, there have always been, even in the animal kingdom and there will always be. But come on, the 86 genres and changing them as I feel like it is a joke that passes for cool nowadays.

It used to be that anyone believe in such "gender fluidity" would have been called mentally ill, but that is not politically feasible anymore so gender identity and gender expression are supposed to be subjective experiences based on feeling alone. Sex and gender are no longer synonymous with each other, and gender dysphoria, outlined as a mental illness in the DSM-V, can merely be fixed as long as it doesn't cause mental anguish. If a male were to identify as a woman and experience gender dysphoria, the solution according to today's medical practices is for that individual to self mutilate themselves in order to turn into a woman through gruesome surgical intervention. After that process, the person no longer experiences gender dysphoria and is somehow cured.

Gender fluid people would call themselves "non-binary" but what normal folks would call "mentally unstable."

Normally none of this would have any impact on ordinary functioning societies because we would not indulge in the delusion of these people that think their gender can be fluid, but in fact it's the opposite. You're seeing males being put into female prison systems, being allowed into female locker rooms, or being allowed to compete in women's sports. It's grotesque.

Anyway, I do get it, you think that gender is something quite static and if someone says that they do not feel the same every day is just silly. However, I do not think there are objective parameters regarding how people have to feel a gender. That would read something like, there is a right and objective way of feeling a man and that seems like there is only one model of "man" or "man feeling" (same for the girls) and you have to "feel like a man" similarly everyday.

For me it's pretty simple. People can feel as they like and I don't mind if they're weird or mentally ill, or whatever, but we all have a line that we do not cross. For instance, if an obvious male goes into a female bathroom that my daughter or wife are at, he's going to get his ass kicked and I'm not going to accept any "I feel like a girl" explanation. What if a pedophile suddenly starts feeling like a 10 year old girl and wants to be friends with your kids? What if a woman starts yelling at you for not recognizing that she's a man (because she feels like a man today, but next week she may feel like a woman again because her gender is fluid, or whatever)? You people want to be weird, be my guest, experiment on yourselves, cut off your penises, take hormones, but don't try to enforce anything on me. I'm not going to invade your space and you don't invade mine.

In 100 years, I could imagine a society where young people are expected to find a gender identity in the same way as they find other aspects of themselves, and maybe their gender identity changes a few times over their lives. Imagining such a society doesn't bother me at all. I think it's totally workable on a cultural level, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the idea, and there have been a few cultures in history which have kind-of worked like this. But right now, our culture is very far from working like this, so people who try to live like that today are unfortunately going to face a lot of difficulties.

IMO it's more likely that the current focus on flexible gender identity as an important thing which is and should be relevant to everyone's daily life will be looked back upon in 100 years as a sort of fad which eventually disappeared. That is, in 100 years there will still be transgender people, and I hope they are better able to thrive than transgender people today, but it's unlikely IMO that anyone is going to be introducing themselves alongside their pronouns, for example. I'm not especially rooting for or against this outcome, but it just seems to me that the recent movement on gender identity is mostly pushed by a relatively small group of ideologues, and it's not relevant or useful enough to the average person for our culture to actually permanently shift in such a major way.

Especially in people younger than ~20, I think that transgenderism today is often (but not always) a result of depression. It's a way to escape one's life, imagine oneself as a completely different person, and attract attention. But because it makes life 100x more difficult, it feeds the depression rather than helping it. This, I believe, is why the suicide rate among transgender people is so high: it's not primarily because they're harassed for being transgender, but because they were clinically depressed from the start. (This is just a guess which I have no evidence for.)

There are also people who are not depressed, are thinking perfectly well, but just prefer the idea of being the other gender. Some people are born with genes which give them poor athletic performance, but that doesn't mean that they have to like it or give up on ever running fast or whatever. With effort alongside modern abundance & technology, it's possible and IMO downright virtuous to fight against nature to get what you want out of life. It would be widely considered offensive today (for understandable but ultimately irrational reasons), but I do think it'd be similarly fine for someone to prefer to be another race and work toward being recognized as a member of that race.

---

The most important thing is for everyone to display tolerance and compassion. If you act hatefully toward LGBT people, or exclude them when you could include them without much cost, then you're being an asshole. But when LGBT people get angry at people for accidentally "misgendering" them, or when they intentionally try to put people into difficult situations as some political statement, etc., then they're being assholes. The most difficult situations are where there is no solution that will make everyone perfectly comfortable, like the question of which locker room transgender students should use, and in these cases it's especially important to treat everyone involved with compassion, not dismissing anyone's feelings as bigoted or unreasonable.

Maybe that's the root of the problem, then. For a lot of people there is a distinction, gender is the feeling of who you are, and sex is the binary biological either/or.




Yes, definitely. A big part of the problem is the inadequacy of the English language. If we had an appropriate and widely-accepted non-gender-specific pronoun that was used by everyone, instead of sex labels, there would be much less of an issue.

And even funnier, there are those who claim to be "non-binary gender fluid" like wth bro, why don't you come up with other names, for example gender fluid dragon kind or gender fluid tyrannosaur. I don't mind your gender, but what matters here is that they want to be legally recognized by religion and the constitution as the new gender. smh

Not really. According to what I've learned, to feel non-binary, is to not feel identified as either male or female, and, in fact, at the conference I attended, one guy who asked a question introduced himself as non-binary. But that's independent of possible gender fluidity. You can feel non-binary and always feel that way, so your gender doesn't (supposedly) flow.


Not really, my point is that what you feel doesn't determine what you are. There are objective parameters to determine what you are and what you feel doesn't change what you are. That I feel I am the most handsome in the world, or the smartest in the world, does not make me the most handsome or the smartest in the world. And if it's my mother who feels it doesn't either.


I think basically the same.

As for locker rooms (which was one of the things discussed at the conference) I think the best solution is locker rooms for everyone, regardless of sex or gender. But with a common lobby and individual compartments for changing.

I frequent a mixed WC, where everyone can enter regardless of sex or gender, and I only felt a little weird the first time. Once you get used to it, it doesn't matter. The toilets are in individual compartments and the sinks for washing hands as well as the hand dryers are shared.


Yeah, well, I am OK with that distinction.


Yes, as I said above, if we were to apply it to other aspects of life it would be laughable.

Yep, but gender is exactly about how someone feels. You have a natural gender (or two) and then you have a psychological gender which is actually determined by internal psychological factors. There is no limit to how people may feel and how fluid that may be.

I think that is more or less the same as CNut237's view.

Non-binary just means you don't ascribe a particular identity to a single masculine or feminine facet. The gender fluid people might describe themselves as "male" one day or "female" another day because they think that gender is a spectrum that is free flowing. The term non-binary applies to everything in the middle of absolute "male" and "female" at the far ranges of the spectrum. Someone feels a bit masculine one day, then might feel more feminine another day.

None of these labels are objective in any sense so the verbiage might not even be relevant. I can't keep up with it, to be honest.


Like this lovely lady?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdnBV-S-RXk

This is perfectly true, people are people, and there will be idiots in any group of sufficient size. But we need to be aware that the other side of this is true as well, there are people who dislike concepts such as gender fluidity or homosexuality, and will cite individual examples of LGBT people being assholes in an attempt to argue that this non-representative minority is actually the norm, and they are all like that. See also the farcical "Black crimes" P&S thread.

There is a limit: contradiction.

According to the leftist vision of gender inequality, women are discriminated against, and to alleviate this discrimination, quotas must be reserved for them in certain jobs.

Note that it is called "gender" inequality, not sex inequality.

If gender is something subjective that depends only on my feelings, simply by declaring myself a woman I have the right to access that reserved quota. Let's see who can prove that I don't feel like a woman.

If we go to objective facts, to sex, that does not happen.

To defend that there is gender discrimination and that gender is simply what one feels is contradictory.


I hope it is clear that it is not that I like or dislike the concept, it is that it is nonsense.

And I also hope you are not alluding to me indirectly, because my brain is capable of more than thinking that:

1) Person A has big ears.
2) Person A is an idiot.
3) Conclusion: all people with big ears are idiots.

It's just that in the last thread you already came out with such an absurd argument.

No, I certainly wasn't referring to you, or to anyone else in this thread, merely to the sort of "argument" put forth in that "Black crimes" thread.
And I am also certainly aware that your brain is capable of complex and nuanced thinking. We have had some good discussions in the past (as well as the inevitable disagreements)!
I take your somewhat combative thread title to be more a question of the semantic distinction between "sex" and "gender" than anything else, and wouldn't regard you as someone who is against people feeling a certain way.




Women are discriminated against, sometimes, in certain situations, by certain people. I wasn't aware this was a contentious point; I thought it was an almost universally-accepted truth rather than a "leftist vision" (which implies a minority viewpoint and something theoretical rather than real and empirically verifiable).

I would agree with you that the word gender has been used as a synonym for biological sex, and indeed often is still used that way. In fact I've no doubt used it that way myself. And I would agree that this adds to the confusion. But if we are talking about the distinction between the way someone feels and their biological situation, then this is the distinction between gender and sex.

No, you could not get onto a women-only shortlist for a job by simply declaring that you feel like you are a woman. This is because if you are applying to strangers for a job, they will go by your apparent gender (your sex), because they don't know your intimate thoughts, nor those of everyone else at the company. Similarly with racial equality, you can't get onto an ethnic-minority-only shortlist if you're ethnically white but "feel" black.

Of course, if you are a biological man but believe you are being discriminated against by certain people because you've told them that you identify as female gender, then that's an entirely separate issue (equivalent to applying to people-you-know-and-in-whom-you've-confided for a job).

Someone needs to make the argument to me about why gender can be fluid but race can’t be. It’s a weird liberal double standard that makes no sense. As they begin being so woke that they turn on themselves I imagine the next decade is not going to be kind to democrats at the polls. People are getting sick of mental illness being considered normal, crime being allowed to run rampant, and the government overstepping their boundaries to force their masks and fears on the rest of us. Now that people are seeing the damage this scamdemic has caused with inflation and the government lying and blaming Putin, I think it won’t be long before the swamp drains itself this time.

Because gender and race are entirely different concepts? Stating that if gender can be fluid then race must also be fluid is a logical fallacy. Simple as that.

It would be like comparing two different physical characteristics and saying "Well, if you can change your weight then you therefore must also be able to change your height."

In general, race by definition is genetic, however there may be fluidity in how you interpret your genetic background at different stages of your life or depending of your learning about your ancestry. In some countries you will fill in questionnaires and you can "choose your race" in a sense. For example, you may have 1/4 of African origin, but "decide" that you are "African Black" because that is how you "feel your race" or that one of your ancestors was Asian and then you consider yourself Asian.

This mostly occurs in the case of mixed origins and may interpret their background differently as time passes, for people who have a mostly uniform ancestry, race is kind of a given.

Many young children dream of being an astronaut, a firefighter, or a police officer when they grow up because society views them as heroes of the world. It is also not uncommon for young girls to go through a "tomboy" phase or a young boy to go through a feminine phase. Both are totally natural, however, most people ultimately outgrow these types of phases.

Just as it would be a bad idea to send a six-year-old into space, it it bad to chemically castrate a young teenager. It is even worse to pressure a young child into thinking they want to be a different gender, and to put the child through surgery in order to "affirm" what the preditor is saying the child's gender is.

In general, I don't have an issue if someone wants to falsely claim they are a different gender than they actually are. What I do have a problem with is that person imposing their nonsense on other people, as well as using their fiction to remove rights and privacy from others.

If the world had let's say 8 million people instead of 8 billion+, that is if human life were currently precious and rare enough for the continuation of the species, then transgenderism and all of the LGBTQ+ movement would be seen as a serious disorder that needs to be healed.

Instead, you have an overcrowded world, limited resources, and some powerful groups are very interested to push any agenda that will keep the population down. Lower T, lower natural instincts, lower procreative sex, lower will to power; in short more docile, passive, dysfunctional and defective people that will rather prefer to be farmed like obedient and dependent consumers instead of being interested in their self preservation and creating a progeny...

One lesson that can be deduced from the Covid pandemic is that the vast majority of the Homo Sapiens currently inhabiting Earth are conformist followers, very small % of the species are capable of critical and independent thought, so if the ruling elite would like to push any agenda, no matter how detrimental it is to quality of life and even survival, a staggering majority are easily and eagerly convinced to obey like zombies...

I'd argue that if the percentage of people who are capable of critical and independent thought was to increase, then the percentage of people who hold your viewpoint would decrease. Is your position really that the (overwhelmingly) old, white men who control the world are actively plotting their own downfall in order to usher in some sort of trans-gender/gay/black/feminist/whatever-else-you-don't-like dystopia ruled entirely by oppressed minorities?

In many ways, philosophy and the so called motivational speakers could be some sick in the head people (Am just saying, not like I mean it but, if you look at it, it's actually true). To have come up with points like this gives me the impression of some gay lover speaking out on his or her context. The society wants us to respect onces choice for being a transgender, a guy person and other things like that but it's my wish as well that they don't force its acceptance on me.

One deduction I made out of OP was the fact that, despite there attempt to escape not sticking gender to some qualities, they still drew a fine line in expressing the fact that, there are habits or characters that could express in someone and it puts you in a gender bracket.
That in itself is the gender they were trying to avoid. Perhaps they could have gone ahead to say, there isn't a thing as gender. Garbage!

Sure but it's a lot simpler to go in the other direction: Instead of 86/whatever genders, just one.

Hello, Komrade.

Ideally there would be no gender identities, because it would all be natural and wouldn't even need to be discussed. But for so long as discrimination persists, labelling of some sort is required.

Speaking of which, it's kinda snitch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5284102.msg55748317#msg55748317) to have you back on the forum, hope you stick around.

I think it is probably more true that social media companies have the ability to cause people to think in certain ways. During covid early days, there was a lot of propaganda surrounding covid, and social media was censoring posts that did not fit a particular narrative.

Many social media companies are trying to do similar things regarding gender, however, what they are pushing is just too ridiculous for most reasonable people to accept.

It's not social media companies that cause people to think in certain ways; they're simply the delivery mechanism. But obviously social media can be exploited by people/companies/nations to cause people to think in certain ways.

Facebook/Twitter etc don't have an incentive to promote any particular narrative, other than 'Facebook/Twitter is great'. Censoring tends to occur when social media companies decide that they need to do something because if they don't, it will reflect badly on them, and they could get into legal trouble or (worse) lose revenue. Censoring Trump (which is I think what you're alluding to) was done entirely out of self-interest, I don't imagine they give a f*ck about Rep/Dem etc, they're interested only in themselves as a company and how their actions or inaction affect their profits.

As regards Covid, they probably don't want to be seen to be promoting the view that people should be injecting themselves with bleach or exposing their internal organs to the healing power of sunshine. That could reflect kind of badly on them, if people start dying. I don't think they'd particularly care about people dying, but they'd certainly care about being associated with it (or being seen as causing it).

As regards gender, if social media companies appear to be pushing anything, then I'd suspect again it's out of self-interest, and not wanting to be accused of being anti- anything.

It's all self-interest, nothing more sinister than that.

In 100 years, when they dig up a body they will still test the bones to determine the gender of the individual.  They won't care about the person's self exploratory journey to discover who they are on the inside or worry about how they identified...  Science is science.  I find it absolutely insane that the party of science who bashes the other side constantly for not agreeing with their "research" can deny that gender isn't something we choose.  Taking it a step further, they can't even say what a woman is.  Only that they identify as one.  I think to be a modern day liberal you either have to suffer from serious mental illness or you are so set on having your way by any means possible that you look the other way at all the nonsense and stay focused on growing your numbers to get your way.

Like all the science supporting the existence of gender dysphoria, you mean?

I'm very curious as to exactly what kind of archaeological studies you think are taking place that only care about the sex of a deceased individual and not how they actually lived (when the latter is, um, kinda the whole point of archeology). Are you sure you're not thinking of necrophilia? :-\

Why would you expect them to? Dividing things into categories is a matter of taxonomy, not science, and taxonomists can't even agree on a definition of species that works in all cases. Rigid adherence to established biological taxonomy is how you end up making absurd statements like "tomatoes are technically a fruit", "viruses aren't really alive", and "there's no such thing as trees (https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/)".